Humanities desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 23

Louis XV of France and George I of Great Britain

Was there any pretense on Louis XV of France's part on the fact that he was technically more related to the deceased Queen Anne than George I of Great Britain being a great-grandson of Charles I of England, albeit a Catholic? Obviously no diplomatic claims but pretenses similar to the British kings' claims to France from the Middle Ages.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Jacobite succession; Louis XV of France#Ancestors; George I of Great Britain#Family tree. Louis was never first in the queue of those skipped over by the Act of Settlement 1701, but at Anne's death he was fifth after the Old Pretender, the Queen of Sardinia (Louis's grandmother), the Prince of Piedmont and the Duke of Aosta (Louis's uncles).

If you're counting degrees of kinship, it's five steps from Anne to either Louis (father-sister-daughter-daughter-son) or George (father-father-sister-daughter-son). —Tamfang (talk) 07:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I have no life, I made a list of the births and deaths of everyone ahead of Louis. From 1715 Mar 22 (death of the Prince of Piedmont) to 1720 Dec 31 (birth of Bonnie Prince Charlie) there were only three; and during his life there were never more than 18. —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that the English claims to the French throne were based in large part on treaty and not purely on succession. Following the Treaty of Troyes, the Plantagenet kings of England were recognized as next in line after the death of Charles VI of France, skipping over his own son. The claim was never formally renounced by treaty, though ultimate victory in the Hundred Years War gave the French throne to the Valois for good. The Plantagenet and their heirs continued to claim the Throne of France until 1801. There never was any treaty or statute which established the Bourbons as legitimate heirs to the Throne of Britain. At no time did Louis XV ever press a claim, nor was he ever considered, even in passing, as far as I know. Following the English Civil War, the Restoration, and the Glorious Revolution, the succession to the British throne was decided purely by Parliamentary statute, and no one pretended otherwise. Parliament did use certain traditional principles, such as primogeniture, in deciding the succession, but it was obvious to all they set the rules, and there was zero chance of them offering the throne to a Catholic French king. --Jayron 32 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Three supreme gods

I've noticed that many religions seem to share a trinity. This includes Christianity, hinduism, and taoism. Is there an underlying reason why many religions have three supreme gods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey13952 alternate account (talk • contribs) 01:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Christianity doesn't have three gods, although some version have 3 manifestations of the same God. And I was under the impression that Hindus have many gods. StuRat (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Hindu "trinity" is referred to as the Trimurti, but it is just one model among many others. Paul B (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HHinduism has many but there are three main gods — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.119.235.208 (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taoism doesn't have any gods. Taoism is merely ancestor worship. There are spirits, but no gods. Some people might interpret them as gods, and if they did, there would be thousands of them. Not three.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

06:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And the Three Pure Ones are not gods in what way? Also, the OP didn't say "only three gods," they said "three supreme gods." Ian.thomson (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the OP's responsibility to post a clear, coherent message, although I am pretty sure most of our other recent Calgary, Alberta IP's have been indeffed. μηδείς (talk) 06:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article on Triple deity.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Rule of three extends to a lot of things. There's just something naturally better about that number, but I can't quite explain what. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think part of it in this particular case is that there seems to be some sort of "triple goddess" such as Hekate and the Morrigan at least from the early days of Indo-European religion. That being the case, the concept was likely carried over to all the groups the Indo-European diaspora contacted, and some of them probably adapted the idea into their own systems. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More generally, all stories since the dawn of time have had a beginning, middle and end. ABC is as easy as 1, 2, 3. Works for non-linear things, too. Wherever there's duality (cold/hot, black/white, up/down), there's a point between. That point between is basically humanity; we all view ourselves by looking to either side. "I may not be as strong/rich/smart as Johnny, but at least I'm not as weak/poor/stupid as Janie." So it seems logical that we'd have always ascribed this tendency to higher powers, too.

Less logically, there once was a man who rode a donkey off to see a man God didn't want him to see. So God sent an angel to kill him. The donkey had better vision than the man, and thrice tried to avoid the angel to save the man. And thrice the man beat that donkey to push it forward, as the walls on either side closed in. On the third strike, God let the donkey voice a complaint, and the man essentially said "If I had a sword right now, I'd kill you, you mockful talking ass!" And the donkey said, "I wouldn't kill you."

Of course, that was just the middle part. The rest is less interesting, I find, but still plenty of threes. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Fact: There's a goddess named Trivia. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

US Civil War

What are 'videttes'? Does it mean a reconnaisance team or something? $KägeTorä - (影虎) (もしもし！)$ 06:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, see Vedette and also 1st Tennessee & Alabama Independent Vidette Cavalry. Nanonic (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

an icebox in the Andes

Some maps show a rectangle straddling the border of Chile and Argentina, latitude 49°9′30″ – 49°47′22″ south, longitude 72°58′ – 73°37′ west. What is it? —Tamfang (talk) 07:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First idea that comes to mind, although it may have nothing to do with it: a protected national park area? (Torres del Paine National Park) Akseli9 (talk) 09:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on the Chilean province of Última Esperanza, a section of that boundary is disputed. The rectangle may show the area that is in dispute. Marco polo (talk) 13:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Southern Patagonian Ice Field#Borderline. The area is officially undefined; both countries have never officially ratified the border in that area. --Jayron 32 15:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Odd that it's shown as a box rather than two dashed lines (like, say, the northern borders of India). —Tamfang (talk) 03:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The box probably defines the unambiguous territorial claims of each country. Outside the box is land that no one disputes; inside the box is an open question. Such boxes appear on the map in other places where borders are or have been disputed. See Saudi–Iraqi neutral zone and Saudi–Kuwaiti neutral zone and Hala'ib Triangle which are other disputed lands similarly shown. --Jayron 32 14:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is box office revenue for a film before interest, overhead, and taxes?

Is box office revenue for a film before interest, overhead, and taxes? For example, if a film made $100 million on ticket sales at movie theatres, does this mean that overhead and taxes are charged on this revenue? WJetChao (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Hollywood accounting may be of interest. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has been a matter of lawsuits when actors or directors have had contracts guaranteeing them a certain amount of the proceeds and then the studio has claimed they actually "lost" money on films that have had scores of millions in ticket sales. I can't think of a specific case at the moment, but I remember this making headlines in the 80's or 90's. μηδείς (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- A current case is Richard Dreyfuss v. Disney where the immediate dispute is over which accounting firm/s can be trusted to look at the precious account books.[1] Rmhermen (talk) 16:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that is indeed one of the cases I had in mind, and I know there are more. μηδείς (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Religions/denominations which do not disclose membership statistics/number of adherents

Apart from Christian Science, Christadelphians, and Iglesia ni Cristo, what are other examples of religions or otherwise denominations (I'm interested mainly in Christian ones) which either do not disclose membership statistics or have an official policy of not disclosing them? And among these (apart from Christian Science, which I've already asked about before), what is their reason or possible reason why they do not disclose membership statistics? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ObPersonal, but in my experience (including that of my own spiritual path, Wicca) many religions are not organised in such a way that they could accurately count the number of their adherents with any comprehensiveness. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology is a group which has a very broad internal definition of being a follower. Basically anyone who has ever bought a book or attended a meeting is a Scientologist according to the Church of Scientology, which makes me one for having bought a book 30 years ago. I can also imagine that some Chinese religious groups or groups in the territory of other repressive governments will not keep lists, particularly of names, of their followers, for fear of the list falling in the hands of the government. And, obviously, some of the Mormon polygamist sects, some of whose activities are a violation of law, aren't really interested in having their identities made known to the governments whose laws they are breaking.

And the point above is another very good one. For groups which have no really recognized internal structure, which might include a lot of newer groups (like Falun Gong), there won't be any body with the ability to count or disclose membership. Some of the newer Christian evangelical movements I think also are made up of member groups which have no particular obligation to report membership to, or in some cases specific body to report that information to, and on that basis their numbers are unknown. John Carter (talk) 17:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

212 is right; there are a lot of independent churches such as my own, Berean Baptist Church in Port Charlotte, Florida, or First Baptist in Englewood, Florida so it would be difficult to get an accurate statistic, for example, of how many Baptists there are in the world, or how many Methodists there are in the world. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 19:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly for groups which have a global body which does not include all possible members. The Lutheran World Federation, for instance, does not include the Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod or Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, among other bodies, so even it's official membership list, which probably won't include those other groups, will be off because of their lack of inclusion. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention there are a lot of people in the world who would identify as Catholic or Baptist but may have not been to church in a long time. In contrast, there may be people whom are members of more than one church, such as snowbirds who may have a church in one area part of the year and another area another part of the year. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Certain individual Christian denominations, with official denominational bodies and other elements of internal structure, still don't or can't release statistics for various reasons. For example, the Church of God of Anderson has no membership (its concept is that salvation makes you a member), so it obviously can't release precise numbers. The intro to our article on it notes that the denomination is happy to estimate the numbers of adherents, but that's quite different from official membership. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I thought early Christianity operated like that. Adherents used the Ichthys symbol to identify themselves to each other in private. But they tried to avoid being noticed by the Roman (or wherever) authorities, so I doubt they'd have published any demographic data or membership figures, even if they had any. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major-General Sir Frederick Hallett

Can anybody find any details of this person. He was an officer in the British Indian Army and in 1859, was appointed to the Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom. That's all I know, otherwise he seems to have fallen through the gaps in the internet. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 17:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think that it might be a typo (or another error) in the source. Frederick Hallett isn't named as a member of the Commission in this list, but there is a Major-General Sir Frederick Abbott, formerly of the Indian Army. And indeed he has an article here. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 21:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well done and many thanks! Alansplodge (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Comcast/TWC merger bombs, good or bad for CCV?

Just heard on Fox News that the merger between Comcast and TWC is not going to go through. Am I alone in thinking this will not be good for Comcast's stock? PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 19:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Follow it for yourself. No significant change yet, perhaps because the news was not totally unexpected. Abecedare (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I do watch it because I own it, but I was more or less curious of what a second opinion would render on this because I bought it when the merger was first announced. Then again, I know that no one here is (acting as) a stock broker or stock market expert. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the current academic consensus is that mergers may boost the stock at announcement, but on average create a negative long-term stockholder value (see eg. [2], [3]) So in general buying a stock at the announcement of a merger, is a bad propositions. Of course there are exceptions and you'll find tons of advisers, consultants, bankers etc arguing that this particular merger that they have engineered falls in that category. Abecedare (talk) 20:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. PCHS-NJROTC ^{(Messages) Jesus Christ loves you!} 20:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine how noncompetitive an internet monopoly would be? EllenCT (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]